Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your comments and replies certainly reinforce my observations of the deniers as being rampantly stupid and willfully ignorant. Thank you for your utter lack of intelligence.
We are too small a part in the scheme of things you believe. Since we became 'civilised' we have destroyed most of the wild animals and replaced them with our farm ones making food for us. I can't find a simple description of this but we human's in the last few years have done just about everything possible to destroy everything in this planet, Anyway here is an article which needs more readingThe climate is changing. There is nothing mankind can do to help or hinder such changes. We are too small of a part of the entire process to make any discernible difference. Politically speaking, it's a great canard for the thus-far failed marxists of the world to redistribute wealth while becoming fabulously wealthy themselves.
www.theguardian.com
www.cbsnews.com
You actually believe mankind has destroyed 83% of all wild animals on earth?We are too small a part in the scheme of things you believe. Since we became 'civilised' we have destroyed most of the wild animals and replaced them with our farm ones making food for us. I can't find a simple description of this but we human's in the last few years have done just about everything possible to destroy everything in this planet, Anyway here is an article which needs more reading
Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals â study
Groundbreaking assessment of all life on Earth reveals humanity’s surprisingly tiny part in it as well as our disproportionate impact
There’s the weasel word: estimates.But comparison of the new estimates with those for the time before humans became farmers
As I said that is not the most simply way to see it but not long ago human's were just a tiny percentage of the mammals around and wild animals were by far the most. Now wild animals make up a tiny percentage of mammals and humans about a third. I don't know how old you are but certainly in my childhood talk was still on 'taming' the planet, making it good for human beings. Of course later we had the oil giants knowing that they were destroying the planet and paying people to say it was not true. They first could be said to be ignorance whereas the second was deliberate ecocide which may end in our destruction.You actually believe mankind has destroyed 83% of all wild animals on earth?
Oh, wait. From your link:
There’s the weasel word: estimates.
Estimates are pretty much guesses.
I’m not worried about humans destroying the planet. We’ll destroy ourselves first and the planet will go on as it has for millions of years. It’s debatable whether a nuclear holocaust would even be enough to end all life, but either way, the planet would go on spinning. If I’m going to worry, it’ll be about thing I, as an individual, can control.As I said that is not the most simply way to see it but not long ago human's were just a tiny percentage of the mammals around and wild animals were by far the most. Now wild animals make up a tiny percentage of mammals and humans about a third. I don't know how old you are but certainly in my childhood talk was still on 'taming' the planet, making it good for human beings. Of course later we had the oil giants knowing that they were destroying the planet and paying people to say it was not true. They first could be said to be ignorance whereas the second was deliberate ecocide which may end in our destruction.
Nice try junior but your last statement only reinforced my assessment that you just love to fabricate, imagine it as fact and then present it as empirical that isn't worth a yellow stain in the snow.I don’t deny climate changes……I don’t belong to your cult that uses climate as a way to achieve power…….or blames humans as a way to take that power…..climate changes, there used to be mile high glaciers where I am at now…..they melted all on their own.……
Al Gore?I think he meant no more summer sea ice in the arctic which was indeed predicted by several warmist/alarmist scientists and Al $$$ Gore himself.
... At least that's what 99.9% of the world's scientists say ...
Sponsored by Sorosthey must support Big oil. Everybody's got to earn a living somehow.
Some scientists call it bunk, especially the overreaction to it. While I acknowledge long-term warming, I think the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.Your comments and replies certainly reinforce my observations of the deniers as being rampantly stupid and willfully ignorant. Thank you for your utter lack of intelligence.
Some scientists call it bunk, especially the overreaction to it. While I acknowledge long-term warming, I think the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.
From his book Heaven + Earth, Australian professor Ian Plimer, >>>
Dr Plimer states :
The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.
Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton, who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. Dr. Happer says:
The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but you're only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.
Despite the advanced levels of these 3 highly respected scientists, the core of what they say is not that much different than what I myself was saying back in the 1960s, when I got a BA in Geography at CCNY and later taught classes there. When I talked about greenhouse effect. the notion was new, and people thought I was talking about growing plants.
The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics (businessinsider.com)
Some scientists call it bunk, especially the overreaction to it. While I acknowledge long-term warming, I think the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.
From his book Heaven + Earth, Australian professor Ian Plimer, >>>
Dr Plimer states :
The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.
Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton, who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. Dr. Happer says:
The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but you're only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.
Despite the advanced levels of these 3 highly respected scientists, the core of what they say is not that much different than what I myself was saying back in the 1960s, when I got a BA in Geography at CCNY and later taught classes there. When I talked about greenhouse effect. the notion was new, and people thought I was talking about growing plants.
The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics (businessinsider.com)
Anthropogenic climate change is real, supported by a wealth of irrefutable scientific evidence, but legitimate confirmation of that reality should not need to be provided or denied by any politician.I for one believe that it is. I've believed this for a long time, but I found that a documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth", which features for Vice President Al Gore prominently, was very persuasive. I know there are those who believe that the Climate isn't changing as well, including some people like James Corbett, who I respect immensely for his work on other subjects, but we simply don't agree when it comes to climate. Recently, a poster in another thread of mine expressed his belief that the climate isn't changing so I thought it might be good to create this thread and see where it goes. I ask that people support any assertions that haven't already been made by another poster with at least one link.
Anthropogenic climate change is real, supported by a wealth of irrefutable scientific evidence, but legitimate confirmation of that reality should not need to be provided or denied by any politician.
Politicians are not climatologists, epidemiologists, public health experts, embryologists, or gender orientation specialists.
Politicians do like to play all those roles, and many others, on tv and elsewhere, and there are actually a few gormless folks who fall for their acts.
Climate? The consensus of climatologists worldwide confirms the reality and the urgency of human-driven climate change via the analysis of apolitical data. Why would anyone base their awareness of climate change upon the uninformed notions of a politician - or a tap dancer, or a plumber, for that matter.
(Although, when your toilet clogs, you may want to call a politician.)
What you should do is to avoid all things that produce co2. Refrain from all products derived from oil, and go vegan. Grow everything organic and live in a mud hut. Then just leave everyone else to live their live who feels that the sky isn't falling.Anthropogenic climate change is real, supported by a wealth of irrefutable scientific evidence, but legitimate confirmation of that reality should not need to be provided or denied by any politician.
Politicians are not climatologists, epidemiologists, public health experts, embryologists, or gender orientation specialists.
Politicians do like to play all those roles, and many others, on tv and elsewhere, and there are actually a few gormless folks who fall for their acts.
Climate? The consensus of climatologists worldwide confirms the reality and the urgency of human-driven climate change via the analysis of apolitical data. Why would anyone base their awareness of climate change upon the uninformed notions of a politician - or a tap dancer, or a plumber, for that matter.
(Although, when your toilet clogs, you may want to call a politician.)
Stay down, Stann , stay down.
Some scientists call it bunk, especially the overreaction to it. While I acknowledge long-term warming, I think the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a modest reduction in it will be negligible.
From his book Heaven + Earth, Australian professor Ian Plimer, >>>
Dr Plimer states :
The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.
Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of Princeton, who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment. Dr. Happer says:
The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but you're only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.
Despite the advanced levels of these 3 highly respected scientists, the core of what they say is not that much different than what I myself was saying back in the 1960s, when I got a BA in Geography at CCNY and later taught classes there. When I talked about greenhouse effect. the notion was new, and people thought I was talking about growing plants.
The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics (businessinsider.com)
...and there is the political bullshit.In reality....climate change is simply another weapon in the arsenal of leftists to take power and to control the lives of other people.....
